From this piece:
"And he (Armstrong) looked at me and he said ‘man I’ve seen death in the face and I don’t take drugs.’ And that’s all he said. I have no reason to disbelieve him.”
That's it settled then Phil. What a clown.
Bike Forum
Phil Ligget - Credulous idiot
-
Posted 3 months ago #
-
I think Phil's just trolling....
Posted 3 months ago # -
What makes you think hes wrong then?
(pokes spin with a pointy stick to see what happens :P)
Posted 3 months ago # -
Best race commentator ever.
Posted 3 months ago # -
The Boys Are Back in Town was his best one, I think.
Posted 3 months ago # -
(pokes spin with a pointy stick to see what happens :P)
Hehe. Well, I do think he's wrong but my point was more about the sycophantic nature of the piece.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Well he would say that wouldn't he.
Posted 3 months ago # -
If WADA are going to continue to press then one must ask the question why because all they’re going to do is waste a lot of money and the guy has finished cycling, if they find him guilty what’s the point?”
Yes he seems really concerned about the issue ..still in a private moment in a bedroom Lance looked him right in the eyes and said this to him...it is like a modern love story.
He want to be believe LA is clean , hell I want to believe it, but it is quite unlikely to be true
Posted 3 months ago # -
Did Phil say who was taking who?
Posted 3 months ago # -
"I was sat in the bedroom some years ago, and I asked him point blank"
"I’ve been with him on his private jet "
...... yes Phil, you're really impartial then.....
Posted 3 months ago # -
"I was sat in the bedroom" - yeah, but was that before or after?
Posted 3 months ago # -
Out of interest who has read millar's book and armstrongs books?
they have both informed my opinions on the people involved and on the less than black and white nature of good guys and villans.
In my opinion Lance didnt do drugs but certainly did 'recovery' injections. As the most focused on and tested athelte i see very little opportunity for him to do drugs and not have tested positive (i cant remember the full details of te supposed 'cover up positive' but im inclined not to believe it)
Posted 3 months ago # -
As the most focused on and tested athelte i see very little opportunity for him to do drugs and not have tested positive
Just like Marion Jones then.
Posted 3 months ago # -
How someone dominated the TDF cleanly (remember he didn't bother with that many other races, unlike many previous heroes) when many others were on drugs is beyond me.
Posted 3 months ago # -
The needle and the damage done, oops wrong thread.
Proof is required!
Posted 3 months ago # -
Well there's so much information out there now, that there's very little point in posting factual stuff without first reading it all.
The main problem is that so many people believe that cycling benefited hugely from The Lance Effect, that they find it difficult to investigate the issue fully. They feel like it would be an attack on their own sport.
When the UCI came to promoting new races, it found it much easier if Lance was involved. They're struggling now. They know that even 5 Condators don't equal one LA on a global stage.
So many feel that even if he did dope, the overall net effect was still a good one (as long as you don't dig too deep).
Personally, I'm with all the people who feel that the LA Effect actually hurt the sport.
Posted 3 months ago # -
How someone dominated the TDF cleanly (remember he didn't bother with that many other races, unlike many previous heroes) when many others were on drugs is beyond me.
THIS
It just defies believe he could win 7 in a row ..look at pantani an exceptional cyclists and drugged up and Lance still beat him. Even on mountains when Panatani had done EPO ..HOW? Serioulsy HOW?
Posted 3 months ago # -
He loses all credibility when, later on in that article he mentions sitting on Lances Private jet with him. totally unbiased then Phil?
Posted 3 months ago # -
I'm not sure I really see the value in the endless pursuit of Lance Armstrong to be honest. I have a respect for the ruthless efficiency of his achievements, but they come across as the product of a personality that I have no wish to emulate.
I'm not sure I believe any of the cycling greats did what they did without resort to "the juice", but I'd be far more interested in efforts to try and create a future for cycling where young men and women didn't feel under pressure to fill their bodies with all sorts of pharmaceutical crap for my entertainment. However, anyone who thinks that drug use in professional cycling is down to individual riders and their choices is living in denial - the teams, managers, race organisers and the governing bodies are all implicated.
...and if we're expressing personal preference, I'd far rather see McQuaid's head on a pole than Armstrong's.
Posted 3 months ago # -
by trying hard. There is no proof so he was clean.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I met Phil at his sportive last year, seemed a nice chap. Judging by his time though, I feel pretty sure Phil wasn't doping.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Lance - just some of the evidence not proof
Micheal Ashendons analysis of the old urine sampleslink
Sworn testimony from previous teammate now known to have doped. Long list of previous teammates now known to have doped
His association with a doping doctor / trainer link
Make your own mind up folks.
Me - I believe he simply has been one step ahead of the testers all the time. I don't believe in a drug free winner ever
His failed test for sterioids - medical exemption with little credibility given after the fact
Posted 3 months ago # -
Hey, it's never been conclusively proved that Armstrong did drugs but if it p155es the French off, it's OK with me.
Posted 3 months ago # -
[/quote]It just defies believe he could win 7 in a row ..look at pantani an exceptional cyclists and drugged up and Lance still beat him. Even on mountains when Panatani had done EPO ..HOW? Serioulsy HOW?[quote] Pantani's not the best example, he was a bit streaky in his form. When you look at the season of an average pro, you have to ask yourself how the hell can they do that.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Sworn testimony from previous teammate now known to have doped.
I assume you mean Landis? You have to question his motives at the time of the testimony though.
I'm probably in the "everyone he beat was doping, so it seems pretty amazing/suspicious that he wasn't", but the point is that he has been tested and tested and tested and it has never been proved. And now he's finished in the sport, why bother continuing the hunt?
The thing with Lance is that there are a huge number of personal and political agendas and conspiracy theories on all sides, so the truth will never out and even if it did, someone would question it. It's time to let it lie.
Posted 3 months ago # -
the reason it wont lie as there is evidence/suspicion/doubts and LA has made such a big deal about being clean.
I agree it is unlikely anything conclusive will come out but it is also unlikely he never cheatedPosted 3 months ago # -
Association is not evidence, TJ. It's rumour, conjecture and assumption.
As above, he's been tested and tested and tested. Maybe he did dope, I don't really know, but I do know that he was never proved to have doped.
Posted 3 months ago # -
well tj you can believe what you like but fortunatley evidence is not proof that someone has done wrong until it is tested and proved. Lets hope all of us don't have to live in a society where hearsay, opinion, speculation and unprovable evidence are used to convict and punish. Oops!
Posted 3 months ago # -
I'm with hisdog and CFH here.
On the one hand, it seems very unlikely he could have done it all clean. On the other hand, despite all of the apparently overwhelming evidence of his guilt out there the fact is that he's never failed a test or been otherwise proven to have doped, and I'm not sure even Armstrong's powers of persuasion/money are enough to stop photos of refrigerated motorcycle panniers or whatever from poppping up on the internet.
I'm certainly not looking at Armstrong through rose-tinted specs but I think that maybe the accusers should either put up or shut up at this point.Posted 3 months ago # -
CaptainFlashheart - Member
he was never proved to have doped.From TJ's article:
Lance Armstrong's '99 samples test positive
AS: So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.
Posted 3 months ago # -
@cynic-al- yes, that's out there, and maybe it's true- who knows? But he still hasn't failed any doping tests.
Posted 3 months ago # -
the fact is that he's never failed a test
Just like Marion Jones
Posted 3 months ago # -
It's not legal evidence so cannot be used to charge him.
Posted 3 months ago # -
There are questions around the testing process for the samples. It was determined that the analysis was conducted improperly and they did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing. But lets not get the truth in the way of a good story.
This was not doping testing, it was research, and flawed at that, so in fact LA did not fail any tests. Fact.
Posted 3 months ago # -
@aracer- Cav's never failed any doping tests either. Just like Marion Jones.
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
